To hear an old Man complain of Education cannot but be a little ſtrange, eſpecially from one who hath been a Teacher himſelf (as he diſdainfully I muſt believe, calls our Clergy) perchance betwixt Thirty and Forty Years; if Twenty, nay Ten, far too much ſure for ſuch a complaint: and in a Church too, which permits and encourages her Clergy in the peruſing, canvaſing and examining all Books of Controverſie betwixt her ſelf and the Church of Rome, and which is more, obliges them to a peruſal and diligent examination of the Primitive Fathers by that very Canon you your ſelf quoted in your Preface, which I have put down alſo.pag. 2. (1.) But this is the common voice of the Converts young or old, and therefore whether to purpoſe or no, you muſt for company uſe it, tho' it be really ridiculous from one in your circumſtances, as I think I have made plain enough. And truly the complaint would far the handſomer become you, now when you are of a Church, that teaches her Members the pretty knack of captivating their underſtanding, ſtopping their ears, and ſhutting their eyes againſt any thing that might convince them of the Errour they are in. I muſt confeſs that your Church is not ſingular herein, the Turks practiſe it as ſtrictly as you, that they may ſecure their Members in their excellent and moſt ſafe (as they doubtleſs think it) Communion and Religion of Mahomet.

But ſuppoſe Education might be a Prejudice, and would give a man a great deal of trouble to rid himſelf of the Prepoſſeſſions it commonly inſtills into green heads, yours could not give you any, ſince Alexander like you cut the Knot that might have given you great trouble to unlooſe, by abſtracting your ſelf (when you entered on your Method) from your ſelf and Religion too; which doubtleſs is both a quick and a ſure way of ridding a mans ſelf of the Prejudices from any Religion,pag. 2. by abſtracting himſelf from Religion, and looking on himſelf as a Man of no Religion. I cannot but applaud your Method of getting ſhut of the Prejudices of Education, and cannot but admire it as the moſt clever, ſure, ſhort, unerring way that any man could take to get rid of Education, which I will now with you take leave of, and paſs on to Intereſt, and ſee how you ſerved it.

And here again you are as conciſe with Intereſt, as you were before with Education, if a man may credit you. When I conſidered (ſay you) Solomon's Advice, pag. 2. buy the Truth, and ſell it not: I was eaſily perſuaded to look upon Intereſt, as a thing worth nothing, &c. And did you ſerve it ſo? why then truly to give you your due, you are an extraordinary Perſon among the Converts; one to whom an Eye to worldly Intereſt cannot fairly be objected: and I ſuppoſe you are very willing and deſirous too, that the World ſhould have ſuch an Opinion of you; that you have fairly quitted all purely for Conſcience ſake; that you had two Livings indeed; but ſince you are convinced that you ought not to be any longer a Communicant with, much leſs a Miniſter of, the Church of England, you have ſacrificed them both to the Intereſt of your Immortal Soul; that tho' as the World now goes, it is the ſure and only way to Preferments in Church or State to continue a Member (at leaſt outwardly) of the Church of England ſo called, yet you for your part have, and do count all this worldly Intereſt, as a thing worth nothing, and are reſolved to turn your back to it, ſo that you may but provide for the Salvation of your Soul.

This truly is the Picture of a very excellent Chriſtian, the only queſtion to be asked now is, whether it is Mr. Sclater's of Putney; I am ſorry that I muſt acquaint the World, notwithſtanding your ſpeaking ſo contemptibly of Intereſt, that really it is no more yours than the man's in the Moon; for to be more ſerious with you, with what face could you write this, when almoſt all the Kingdom knows, that you hold both your Livings ſtill, tho' you diſown your being ſo much as a Member of the Church of England; and how briskly you hectored and quarrelled the Church of Worceſter, when they only deſired to fill the Cure of Putney with a Miniſter of the Church of England, which you denyed any longer to own your ſelf to be?

A great many I am ſure, think you did very ill to hold thoſe Livings in your preſent Condition, and I do aſſure you, it is infinitely worſe to do it, and yet by writing to inſinuate to the World, that you have not, but have accounted all worldly Intereſt (the Profits of two Livings may be ſo named I hope) as a thing worth nothing. You have not loſt, or delivered up any worldly concern that I can hear of on this account, you ſtand I believe in as much probability as ever you did of getting more: if this be the way of ſlighting, and undervaluing Intereſt, I do aſſure you that all the Covetous, the Extortioners, and the worldly Hypocrites do it as much as you.

LEaving then this falſe as well as diſingenuous account of your ſetting aſide, and ridding your ſelf of Intereſt, I muſt begin the Examination of your Method of reſolving your ſelf in your Doubts, which indeed is ſurprizing from a Miniſter, and became Des Cartes as to matters of Philoſophy, a little better, than it can do you or any one elſe in Matters of Religion. Here (ſay you) as I had abſtracted my ſelf from my ſelf and Religion too, pag. 2. as a man of no Religion, but contemplating all: I muſt lay all before me, and look ſtudiouſly upon them, &c.

If you mean by this account of your Method, that you really put your ſelf into an abſtracted ſtate, and were really as of no Religion ſo of no Church at all during this your ſearch for a Communion wherein you might be afterwards ſafe, I muſt tell you, that as your Method was moſt extravagant, ſo it was of too ſhort a duration for your looking ſtudiouſly, contemplating and comparing the two Communions of England and Rome together, ſince it is as certain that you were at Maſs laſt Eaſter Day, 1686, as that you did give the Communion at Putney Church on Palm Sunday before it, and therefore muſt have been a Miniſter of the Church of England on the one Sunday, and a Member of the Church of Rome on the next, during the time betwixt which two Sundays I am certain you are far from being able to have conſidered and examined the Merits of the two Churches: you are not ſo quick a Man,pag. 2. for all your pretended diſcovering at firſt ſight that all other Communions were evidently confuſion.

But allowing that during this ſearch you onely Ex hypotheſi put your ſelf in ſuch a ſtate without leaving actually our Communion till your Method and Reaſons were over and ſatisfactory, it was a very odd Method for a Man that had been ſo long a Miniſter, and was ſo old a Man, and would much handſomer have become you, were you coming over from Paganiſm, or Mahometiſm, than from one Church that evidently hath the Catholick Faith to another. Whichſoever of the two Senſes was that which you deſigned, I am certain that the firſt was fit onely for a Madman, and the other almoſt as much unbecoming an old Clergy Man, who after Threeſcore (as I believe you are) falls to abſtracting and doubting, and ſuppoſing, as if he had been in a Dream all the reſt (and beſt part) of his Days, ſince he was in Orders: and at laſt when others being to dote, he begins to doubt, to ſearch, and to make ſaving diſcoveries.

If you wanted a Particular Communion, a true Member of the Catholick Church wherewith to communicate, and upon which to truſt your Salvation, the Church of England (Particular as to place, Catholick as to Faith and Doctrine) is ſuch; ſo that your inquiry might here have ended, ſince if you were a true Member of Hers, you were at the ſame time as true a Member of the Catholick Church.

Here I muſt take occaſion to tell you, that you ſeem by your Abſtracting your ſelf from your ſelf, to have wilder'd your ſelf, and thence to have confounded the Notions of the Catholick and Particular Churches, while from our Saviour's promiſe that the Gates of Hell ſhould never prevail againſt the Catholick Church, you argue the Church muſt be one, which no Body denies; that it muſt have one Faith, which no Body denies neither, and that it muſt by virtue of Chriſt's promiſe perpetually abide in this one Faith, nor is this denied any more than the other two by any of our Church; and what have you got hence? onely that Chriſt hath and will always have a true Church upon Earth, which I know no Body ever denied. But here is the grand pinch, and what one may eaſily ſee you aim at, and that is to have this Catholick Church, and the Church of Rome to be all one and the ſame; which we ſhall ſee how you prove by and by.

In the mean time I muſt return to you, where I left you quarrelling with our Church-men, and ſee whether I can make an end of the Quarrel. You ſay that you found that thoſe of our Church that had moſt Reverence for Church Authority, meant onely their own, &c. You had done the World a great kindneſs, if you had told who they were you inquired of, and what were the Queries you put to them. I hope if you asked after the Catholick Church, they did not tell you that the National Church of England was the whole Catholick Church. If you asked after a Particular Church, ſurely you cannot blame them for aſſerting the Authority of their own Church. When you put the ſame Queries to the Romiſh Teachers or Writers, did they reject their own Church's Authority, did not they mean their own, when they would perſuade you to their Communion, as much as our Men did that of our Church, when you inquired among them? where then is the fault? what would you have had 'em to doe to pleaſe you? would you have had them to ſay that the Church of England is the Catholick Church, which no one that hath any ſenſe can ſay of Her any more than of the Church of Rome? would you have had 'em to ſay that they had a Church indeed, but that either ſhe had no Authority, or that no Body need to ſubmit to it? which none but a mere Ignoramus could ſay.

This, Sir, is perfect Trifling, this is to write a Book, and yet not to know what one wants, or what he would have. I wiſh to God you had reſerved (when you were abſtracting your ſelf) a little Logick, that a Man might have known what you meant here, and where one might have you; that ſo, when a Reader thinks by your Words and by Connexion that you are talking of the Catholick Church, you may not come off with a Piſh, the Man underſtands me not, I was ſpeaking of Particular Churches. I wiſh you had licked this your confuſed piece into a little better Method; and had beſtowed on it a little thing called Intelligibility; but perhaps you thought ſuch a ſtile fitteſt for a Man that was going to write about Tranſubſtantiation.

You are as little pleaſed with them, when you ſay they held the Scriptures in high eſteem (you might without a falſity have added, in far greater than the Church of Rome does, of which you now are) though under that Notion, they underſtood no more, pag. 3. than what themſelves were pleaſed to allow to be Canonical, admitting alſo ſome Traditions, but taking and refuſing as they ſaw good, &c.

To be brief with you on this point, if you ſpeak here of particular Perſons in our Church, it is utterly falſe, ſince they are all obliged to believe that to be the Canon of Scripture, which is ſet down in the Articles of our Church, and there is not one Man of our Church that is at liberty to believe which he pleaſes, and to reject which he pleaſes from being Canonical Scripture to him, and for Traditions received in the Church, no particular Man hath any more power over them, than over the number of the Canonical Books. But if you ſpeak of our Church it ſelf here, (which your words without ſtretching will not bear,) it is as falſe of Her, ſince ſhe believes and delivers thoſe Books onely as Canonical, which the Primitive Church believed and delivered down to her as ſuch: She rejects none as Apocryphal, which were not alſo rejected as ſuch by the Primitive Church, as the Famous and moſt Learned Biſhop Coſin hath moſt incomparably proved it for her in that his excellent Scholaſtick Hiſtory of the Canon of Scripture. And for Traditions ſhe rejects none but ſuch, as have no evidence, nor probability of their ever having been of uſe in the Primitive Church, or ſuch as are of no moment; in which caſe I never ſaw reaſon, why the National Church of England hath not as much Authority herein to judge of theſe things, as the Church of Rome her ſelf, who (for example ſake) hath left off giving the Communion to Infants, tho' a Tradition of the Catholick Church.

So that I cannot for my Life ſee; what you would fain, tho' moſt ridiculouſly, deduce from hence, that all with us reſolved it ſelf into the Judgment of a Private Spirit, pag. 3. and muſt be (I ſuppoſe you mean the Private Spirit muſt be, tho' your words are far from bearing it) the chief, or rather onely ſupport of your Proteſtant Faith, &c. Since it is ſo palpably falſe, as I have juſt now ſhewn, nothing as to matters of Faith, Diſcipline, or Church Communion among us being either left to, or guided by, or depending upon any Man, how great, or how learned ſoever, his private Spirit; and ſo ridiculous, that I could not forgive it any Man, that had not abſtracted himſelf from his reaſon: but to doe you right, you have almoſt a mind to come off it with your Methought; and I am content without being angry that it ſhould paſs for your thought, the abſtracted-no-Religion Man's.

You go on to ſhew that you could not perſuade your ſelf that Scripture alone could be the Judge of Controverſies, pag. 3. and reſolve your doubts, when the Private Spirit was made the Judge of Scripture, &c. Let the private Spirit be excluded, will you admit it then? will you allow the Repreſentative Church of England to interpret in new Emergencies, which fell not within the care of Antiquity and the Four General Councils? If you admit this, there need be no diſpute, ſince long before your doubts, the Church of England hath by publick Authority interpreted the Scripture in all matters of Faith and Diſcipline, and tied up all her Members; hath in all the points of Controverſie betwixt us and Rome determined, that the ſenſe of the Scripture is directly againſt them, and for us: If you will not admit it, I ſhould be glad to ſee one reaſon againſt it, that would not as fully fly in the face of the Church of Rome.

As to the Miſchief upon this Principle of the Private Spirit, pag. 3, 4. the Wars and Murders, &c. You ought to have remembred that that Principle was not ſet up by, but againſt the Church of England, and that it was not the Church, but the direct and ſworn Enemies thereof that committed all thoſe outrages; you cannot be ignorant that it was She only that ſuffered during that Rebellion and Schiſm: and therefore it is moſt unjuſt in you to inſinuate as if She was cauſe of all that diſtraction, whereas nothing is more apparent than the contrary to it. And as to your Tanrum Religio, &c. I challenge you to ſhew any one Principle of the Church of England that encourages, or does but glance towards Rebellion, Sedition, or diſturbance of either Church or State: This I'll promiſe you for every one, I'll ſhew you Ten of your new Church, I'll ſhew you Councils for it, your own moſt famous of all the European Councils, the Fourth of Lateran leading the Van. Your Popes depoſing Princes, pag. 84. giving away their Kingdoms (as they have done ours more than once) ſetting up in Rebellion Son againſt Father. I'll ſhew you the Rebellious Holy League in France, one King moſt barbarouſly Murdered by it, a Pope [Sixtus Quintus] in a ſet Speech commending the Paricide: the Sorbone it ſelf making Rebellious Decrees againſt the Two Harries of France, both Maſſacred by their Catholick (as they call themſelves) Subjects; but enough of this, wherein you know or at leaſt ſhould, that we have infinitely the advantage of your new Church as to Principles of Loyalty.

The reſult it ſeems of your Inquiry and ſearch among us was, that you could not comply with common reaſon if you did not diſclaim the Judgment of your own, or any Man's private Spirit, &c.pag. 4. I have upon this but one Queſtion to ask you, and that is how you came to be a Roman Catholick; if you diſclaimed your own reaſon or private Spirit, pray who choſe your guide or Church for you; if you diſclaimed every ones elſe, pray tell us how any Body elſe could doe it for you? But notwithſtanding this your diſclaiming, we find you buſie enough up and down the Book acting as if you never had done any ſuch thing, diſcovering, judging, complying, contemplating, ſearching and Forty ſuch expreſſions which uſed to denote the exerciſe of a Man's private Judgment and Reaſon.

THE Fruit of all your ſearch hitherto hath been onely to find, pag. 4. or at leaſt to miſtruſt the ground you ſtood upon ſomewhat unſure, &c. What ground it was you then ſtood upon, I cannot gueſs, ſince before this you had abſtracted your ſelf from Religion, and ſuppoſed your ſelf as of no Religion, ſo moſt certainly of no Church. But all this is aſſuredly but a figure to bring in the Rock, the Rock you think you were got upon, when once a Romaniſt. If I might have had a word with you before you had mounted your Rock, for now I am afraid there is no ſpeaking with you, I would onely have been informed by you, whether there is but one Rock, and whether I muſt giveOrig. Hom. 1. in Matth. Origen the lie who tells me that all the Apoſtles were Rocks as well as Peter; and what I muſt ſay toPreſcript. c. 32. & 36. Edit. Franck. 1597. Tertullian and others, that tell me, other Apoſtles planted Churches as well as Peter and Paul at Rome; and that I might be as ſafe in any of them all, as in that at Rome, ſince they and Rome had the ſame Faith (asCont. Haer. l. 1. c. 2, 3. Edit. Feuard. 1625. Irenaeus ſays) delivered to them, and had a Miniſtry ſettled by Apoſtles among them. I wiſh I might be ſo happy as to have a ſatisfactory Anſwer to theſe Queries from you or any one elſe.

But for the preſent you are too buſie, having got the Text, that the Gates of Hell ſhould not prevail (which Text by the bye how came you to interpret of a Church, ſince if you diſclaim your private Judgment, it does, for any thing you can know, relate to ſomething elſe?) You are ſure upon it that Chriſt hath a Church, that that Church has but one Faith; which I have already told you our Church does not deny. And now you wanted nothing to find firm footing (ſure footing you ſhould have called it for Mr. Serjeant's ſake) but to diſcover, pag. 4. whether the Church from her Original was the Commiſſioned Interpreter of the Sacred Writings, &c.

One would expect here in a thing of that moment ſome well managed Reaſons from Scripture, Reaſon, and the Conſent of Antiquity to prove that the Church of Rome (which you cannot deny that you mean here,) was this Commiſſioned Interpreter; but inſtead of that, you think you do it cleverly enough by inſinuating that without it there would be no end of Controverſies, which is not proving but begging. As to the choice of a Hundred Faiths (without ſuch an Interpreter) which you ſay you ſaw you might have; if you mean in the Church of England, pag. 5. and that you muſt mean, having already ſet aſide all other Communions, and being now employed in the examining whether of the Two Churches, the Church of England or Rome, you might be ſafe with; I am obliged to tell you that there are no fewer than Ninety Nine miſtakes in this ſhort Sentence, ſince the Faith of the Church of England is but one, and as much one as that of the Church of Rome her ſelf.

But for all this talk you have not got to your Church yet,pag. 5. which muſt be Viſible; to wave needleſs Diſputes, ſuch the Church of England is as well as the Church of Rome. And now you want nothing but a definition of her, which you complain you could not get among us, and therefore was forced to go to the Books of Catholicks: As to the complaint I anſwer that you needed not to have gone to the Catholicks (as you call 'em) ſince the Church of England's definition in her Articles will I think, ſatisfie any reaſonable Man, whileArticle 19. it defines the Viſible Church of Chriſt to be a Congregation of Faithfull [here Hereticks and Schiſmaticks are both excluded] Men, in which the pure Word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments be duly Miniſtred according to Chriſt's Ordinance [and that muſt be by lawfull Paſtors] in all thoſe things that of neceſſity are requiſite to the ſame.

You could not but know of this Definition of the Church of Chriſt, you had done well to have ſhewn particularly, wherein it failed of ſeparating Hereticks or Schiſmaticks from being either Flock or Shepherds in the Church. But no Ignorance is comparable to that which is affected. And ſince you would not be contented with ours, I'll e'en try S. N's. and ſee what reaſon it has to be prefer'd to that of the whole Church of England.

The Church of Chriſt is one Society or company of Men. S. N. Ch. of E. S. N.

The Viſible Church of Chriſt is a Congregation.

Now this paſſage is ſo far from proving what you would have it, that there is but one Supreme Biſhop, who you ſay is he of Rome, that it aſſerts the direct contrary, for if it proves, as you ſay it does, that there is but one Altar and one Biſhop, I am as certain that it proves that one Biſhop to be the Biſhop of Philadelphia, and that one Altar to be this Biſhops, ſince he exhorts theſe Philadelphians to make uſe and keep to that Euchariſt, that was to be received from that one Altar, that did belong to that one Biſhop: and that one Biſhop I am ſure was the then Biſhop of Philadelphia. I will not urge upon you any place of Ignatius, but will onely ſay, and will be at any time ready to prove, that he that cites Ignatius for a defender of a Monarchical Church under one Head on Earth, either hath not read Ignatius, or does not underſtand him.

What you urge from St. Cyprian is to no purpoſe, ſince every one owns that every Member ought to keep the Ʋnity of that Church to which he doth belong, and that no Man that is diſobedient to the Church his Mother, will ever have God for his Father. Nor your long quotation from St. Irenaeus, where your faculty of tranſlating appears to be none of the beſt,pag. 8. This Preaching and this Faith, when the Church had heard ſpread through the whole World, ſhe diligently keeps, as it were dwelling in one Houſe; to wit, having one Soul and one Heart, &c. which give me leave to alter a little to St. Irenaeus his good ſenſe, and then you ſhall have my Anſwer about it. The [Catholick] Church having received this Preaching and this Faith, although [ſhe be] diſperſed over the whole World, yet keeps and preſerves them as diligently, as if ſhe [were confined to or] did Inhabit a ſingle Houſe; and ſhe doth believe them without any difference or diſagreement, as tho' ſhe had but one Soul, and but one Heart, and accordingly doth both preach, teach, and deliver theſe things, [theſe Articles of Faith] as if ſhe had but one Mouth, &c. Of all the paſſages in Antiquity, I wonder what ill Fate put this piece of St. Irenaeus in your way: had you conſidered it well, I am ſure we ſhould not have met with it in your Book, ſince it does perfectly ruine the whole deſign of this part of your Book; for whereas the benefit you intended from it was to help you to prove that the Church of Chriſt is Monarchical under a ſingle head, there is nothing leſs here, and every thing contrary; for as it ſpeaks of the Catholick Church, as one through this Ʋnity of Faith, ſo it proves (what we of the Church of England ſo much contend for) that the Particular Churches of Germany, Spain, France, Aegypt and the Eaſt, of Lybia, Jeruſalem, Rome, and the reſt, do make up this Catholick Church, without the leaſt hint of a Head over them all, or of any other Ʋnity than that of Faith, the Light that doth, like the Sun, equally enlighten every where. You will ſay perhaps that the Church of Rome is not expreſsly mentioned here, and that probably it is, becauſe all theſe Particular Churches mentioned are the ſeveral parts of her Body which really is the ſame as the Catholick Church. But to ſpoil this groundleſs Pretence, —neque haequae in Medio Mundi ſunt conſtitutae. not to inſiſt on it that by the Churches conſtituted in the middle of the World in this paſſage, She as well as Jeruſalem, and the Churches betwixt them is certainly intimated; I deſire you but to peruſe the Third Chapter of his Third Book againſt Hereſies. Having in the beginning of this Chapter urged againſt the Hereticks that none of the Apoſtles delivered to the Biſhops their Succeſſours any ſuch things as they impiouſly taught, and that he could ſhew this from the Succeſſions in all the Churches, he thus addreſſes them,Sed quoniam valde longum eſt in hoc tali volumine Omnium Eccleſiarum enumerare Succeſſiones,—Romae fundatae & conſtitutae Eccleſiae—Traditionem, &c. St. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. contr. Haeres. Edit. Feuardent. 1625. But becauſe it is too tedious in ſuch a Volume as this is to reckon up the Succeſſions of all Churches, &c. he then reckons up that of the very great and very ancient Church founded at Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul, &c. If this paſſage do not prove the Church of Rome to be one of all thoſe Churches, and as Particular a Church, as any of the reſt, I will for the future (as you did) abſtract my ſelf, and deny my Eyes as well as my Reaſon.

What you quote from Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian, two of whoſe paſſages are part falſly, pag. 9. and part lamely tranſlated) are nothing at all to your purpoſe, they only ſpeak of the Catholick Church as one through the Ʋnity of Faith, not a word of the Church of Rome, or of her being that one Church under one Head Biſhop.

The ſame advantage and no more doth that from St. Chryſoſtom afford you,pag. 9. which ſays, The Apoſtle calls it the Church of God, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . that he may ſhew it may be reduced into one [which with your leave I would expreſs thus, to ſhew, or having ſhewed, that it ought to be at Ʋnity, &c.] All which is no more than what the Members of the Church of England have ſaid a Hundred Thouſand times, that every Church, as well as that at Corinth ought to be at Ʋnity.

You might have quoted our Collect for all Conditions of Men [O God, the Creatour and Preſerver of all Mankind, p. 9. &c.] inſtead of the paſſage out of Theodoret, onely you had a mind to ſhew your great reading, otherwiſe ours would have ſerved you to all the purpoſes this can, they both ſaying the ſame thing, that is, not one ſyllable to your intentions. p. 10. St. Ambroſe's and St. Hierome's are juſt the ſame, ſpeaking that which none of our Church can deny, every member of it doth believe that there is one Catholick and Apoſtolick Church, and at the ſame time is as ready to profeſs, that he doth no more believe than any of the Primitive Chriſtians ever did, that the Church of Rome is that Church, or that that one Catholick and Apoſtolick Church is governed by one Supreme Paſtour the Biſhop of Rome; which was the thing you were to prove, but how little you have performed it, I dare appeal to any one, that would but, as he reads, conſider, and compare your quotations, and what I have ſaid upon them.

More Teſtimonies, it ſeems, you could have given us, p. 10. but you ſay, it were too tedious, either to write or reade, &c. There is another reaſon why they would be tedious, and that is, becauſe if they are no better than theſe we have had already, they would have been nothing to the purpoſe: and to ſay thoſe Teſtimonies you have preſented us are not the beſt, would be to diſparage your prudence and parts, which we need not doe. One more however you cannot refrain giving us for good omens ſake, that of Conſtantine the Great, whoſe Zeal for the Ʋnity of the Catholick Church, and his moſt earneſt endeavours for the peace thereof all know and admire, and therefore 'twas needleſs to recite, ſince it hath not one ſyllable to your buſineſs, which was not to prove, what both ſides affirm, that there is a Catholick Church, but that the Church of Rome is that Catholick Church governed by one Supreme Paſtour. Quod reſtat probandum & aternùm reſtabit.

One thing I muſt deſire of you by reaſon of theſe paſſages, that if ever you ſet up again for a Writer, you would either tell us what Editions the Books are of which you quote; or name the Books you pick'd 'em out of; you cite the 62d Chapter; Valeſius's Edition ſays it's the 64th: you quote the 63d, and he ſays it's the 65th Chapter of Euſebius's 3d Book of the Life of Conſtantine.

HAving now diſcharged my ſelf of my digreſſion, and ſatisfactorily I hope proved that which I undertook in it. I do now paſs to your Muſter of all thoſe places and perſons under the Pope, the Unity of which, your aſſurance is, doth hence proceed, p. 11. becauſe they ſubmit themſelves to the Judgment and Regulation of one Dictator, who conſerves the ancient Decrees of General Councils, depoſited with him by the whole Church, from whom if any diſſent, or walk irregularly, he is ſevered and cut off from the reſt of the Members, &c.

That the ſubmiſſion of all thoſe Churches you mention to the Dictator at Rome, is the cauſe of that Ʋnity you ſay is among them, no Body does deny any more, than that all the Philoſophers among the Heathens would have been as much at Ʋnity, had they made Ariſtippus or Pyrrho their Ʋniverſal Dictator, and reſolved never to think, ſpeak or write beſides what he was pleaſed to command or teach them. The Queſtion betwixt us is, whether Chriſt did leave his Church in a Monarchical State under the ſole ordering of St. Peter at firſt, to be continued after his deceaſe under the ſucceſſive Biſhops of Rome; and this is the thing to be proved; as for what you talk about the Roman Dictators keeping and managing the Canons of General Councils, I queſtion not before we part upon this head to prove your Reaſons for it either falſe, or ridiculous.

But before we go any further, is the Church of Rome really at that Ʋnity that one might expect from its having ſuch an Ʋniverſal Dictator over it? I trow not; for did you never hear of that long bandying (which perhaps is not ended) about the Immaculate Conception; nor of the violent Feuds betwixt the Janſeniſts and Moliniſts, which for all the Popes determination continue to this Day? Is that whole Community agreed about the Infallibility? How is it then that ſome are for the Perſonal Infallibility of the Biſhop of Rome as ſuch; ſome that He is ſo onely in Cathedra; ſome that onely a General Council is ſuch? Are they agreed about his Juriſdiction? How is it then that ſome put him under, and others above a General Council? Is his Supremacy determined wherein it doth conſiſt? Whence is it then that the Clergy of France ſo lately made Determinations for the Limitation of it, 1682. and to deny his Depoſing Power, or Medling in Temporals: And the Clergy of Hungary under the Arch-Biſhop of Gran did 1684 Condemn the Determinations of France, to omit the Inquiſition of Toledo doing the ſame thing againſt them? What was the reaſon that the Pope, who is Dictator, and might with a word as ſuch ſilence theſe Quarrels, ſuffers theſe contrary Determinations, but that he hath wit enough to know that he is not ſo much a Dictator, as Mr. Sclater makes him, in France, and that his Bulls would ſignifie no more there about theſe things, than they did about the Regale. Are not the Profeſſed Members of that Communion for all their Dictator ſtill quarrelling and bandying one againſt another, witneſs the Satyrs and virulent Libels betwixt the Jeſuites and the Carmelites, to paſs by the more perſonal ones betwixt Maimbourgh and Schelſtreat, betwixt Alexander Natalis and D'enghien, betwixt Arnauld and Malebranch; I will but ask you one queſtion, why all F. Alexandre Noel's Books, wherein he hath done all he can to vindicate their Religion, were all condemned to the Fire not excepting one by this Pope's Breve in Eighty Four. I doubt we ſhall find that Doctors differ about the depoſing Power and the Popes Supremacy in the boſome of the Church of Rome it ſelf: and that the French did not ſubmit quietly to the Condemnation of their Determinations by the Clergy of Hungary.

Theſe things perchance are moſt of 'em news to you, and therefore you cannot be blamed for thinking or writing that they are at Ʋnity under their Dictator at Rome, becauſe you knew no better; but if you be angry and ſay you did know them, I deſire to know how you could ſay that the Members of that Church do ſubmit to that Dictator, and are at Ʋnity under him, whereas the Inſtances I have given are more than enough to convince, that what you have written is but a Dream, and your own confident miſtake.

TO leave this and proceed in your Book, your buſineſs being as I told you above, to prove that Chriſt left his Church in a Monarchical State under the ſole ordering of St. Peter at firſt, to be continued after his deceaſe under the ſucceſſive Biſhops of Rome: It is ſtrange to ſee how confuſedly you go about it, but much ſtranger that you ſhould begin with St. Dennis, and not with the Scripture. But I am afraid this Book it ſelf, as well as the private Spirit that uſed to ſenſe it, are now diſtaſted by you alike, and that it is look'd upon as a far more dangerous than uſefull Book, and ſo fitteſt to be ſet aſide, where there is no abſolute neceſſity of bringing it upon the Stage.

For your Teſtimony from St. Dennis, you know my mind already,pag. 11. and we ſhall have occaſion by and by to talk a little more about him. pag. 11. St. Irenaeus his Teſtimony had come in I think, a little better under your laſt Head among your Teſtimonies for the Ʋnity of the Catholick Church. But how it proves St. Peters Supremacy I cannot deviſe, except you can prove that St. Peter and St. Paul were but One Individual, and make them two into one Man, as (p. 76.) you have made Scotus Erigena into two: Nor is there a word here about Supremacy; all that Irenaeus ſaith is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [viz. Romae,] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Iren. c. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Edit. Feuard. that St. Peter and St. Paul by their joint endeavours having founded that Church made Linus Biſhop there, &c. which place ſeems to (if it really do not) exclude St. Peters being Biſhop there himſelf at all, ſo far is it from proving his Supremacy.

But if it will not ſerve for this purpoſe, lets ſee what it will do for to prove the Catholick Church to be Monarchical, and no other than the Church of Rome. You found (ſay you) Irenaeus [I'll venture to put in, ſaying, for without it or ſuch a word I muſt confeſs that I cannot make Engliſh out of your Period,] that it was of neceſſity that every Church ſhould agree with the Church of Rome, &c. Your tranſlation here I cannot admit, for convenire ad hanc Eccleſiam is ſurely to come up to this Church; the reaſon of which St. Irenaeus makes the potentior Principalitas (which I wonder you ſhould omit in your Tranſlation) the more powerfull Principality, the Supreme Civil Government, Rome then being the Imperial City of the World, and the Seat of the Senate and chief Judicatures, which muſt of neceſſity bring People, Chriſtians as well as others, thither from all parts, and therefore make the Church of Rome a moſt viſible and eminent Church, and ſo the fitteſt for St. Irenaeus his deſign againſt the Hereticks, when he had obliged himſelf to reckon up the Succeſſion of one among the ſeveral Apoſtolical Churches of the World.

I am not ignorant your now party are very earneſt upon this place, and very deſirous to have it believed that by potentior Principalitas here is meant the Dignity and Juriſdiction of the Church at Rome over all other Churches, and that therefore they ſhould reſort to her as to their Head and Miſtreſs. But not to inſiſt on the Inconſiſtency of ſuch a ſenſe of theſe words with all the accounts we have of this and the reſt of the Apoſtolical Churches from the pureſt Antiquity (which I could eaſily ſhew, had I room here,) I onely ask them, what every Church was to go thither for? Was it for the Catholick Faith? that St.Traditionem igitur Apoſtoloru • in toto mundo manifeſtatam in Omni Eccleſiâ adeſt perſpicere omnibus qui, &c. Iren. con. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus aſſures us they, every one had at home, the Apoſtles after their Churches planted delivering to them the true Faith, which then was kept as he aſſures us, inviolably by them, and therefore no need to go to Rome for it. Was it for Diſcipline? There was as little need for their going about this as for the other, ſince in the ſeveral Churches which they planted, the Apoſtles ordained them Biſhops, delivering to them Idem Ibidem. ſuum ipſorum locum Magiſterii, their own place and power of Juriſdiction, which certainly was for Diſcipline. If they of your Party can invent any other buſineſs for their going thither, I do not queſtion but that any of our Writers will be able to refell it, as ſoon as mentioned.

WHAT you wanted of evidence from the three firſt Centuries of the Church, which are far from affording you any Practice of ſuch a Supremacy, or any hints of there being any ſuch thing ſettled at Rome, but all ſpeak the direct contrary to it, as I could very eaſily ſhew; you think to make up from little ſcraps of Fathers of the fourth and fifth Centuries, whoſe Rhetorical and honorary Expreſſions ought not to be taken in a ſtrict literal ſenſe, becauſe otherwiſe it were eaſie to make them contradict themſelves, nay altogether unavoidable to prevent it. The Inſtance ſhall be in St. Hilary whom you firſt quote.pag. 12. He tells us (ſay you) Chriſt gave St. Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that he built his Church upon him: and yet in another part of his Works Super hanc igitur Confeſſionis Petram Eccleſiae aedificatio eſt—Haec Fides Eccleſiae fundamentum eſt. Hilarius de Trinit. l. 6. this Father makes the Confeſſion it ſelf (as moſt of the Fathers doe) the Rock, on which our Saviour built his Church. If you will then take the words you quote in a ſtrict ſenſe, and I take thoſe that I quote in as ſtrict and literal; St. Hilary I perceive is like to ſuffer betwixt us, and be made directly to contradict himſelf. As to the keys, that I'll anſwer anon. As we ſerved St. Hilary, ſo we muſt Epiphanius about the Rock, whom you quote making St. Peter, pag. 13. the firſt of the Apoſtles, the firm Rock upon which God's Church was built. Him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Epiphan. adv. Haereſ. L. 2. Tom. 1. p. 500. Edit. Petav. I quote alſo making St. Peter's Confeſſion (not his perſon) the foundation of the Catholick Church. I muſt confeſs that it is purely neceſſity that forces me, or any of our Church to ſhew theſe incoherences in the Fathers if taken in a rigid literal ſenſe, whereas allowing them a latitude befitting Homities, not Controverſies, Rhetorical Amplifications, not cloſe inartificial Diſcourſes, they are conſiſtent enough.

That it was not originally the chief or governing Chair is as plain from the account we have in Euſcbius from—Peſt ſervatoris Aſcenſum Petrum; Jacobum & Joannem, quamvis Dominus ipſos caeteris praetuliſſet, non idcirco de primo honoris gradu inter ſe contendiſſe, ſed Jacobum cognomine Juſtum, Hieroſolymorum Epiſcopum elegiſſe. Clemens apud Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. Edit. Valeſ. Clemens his Sixth Book of Inſtitutions; That after our Lord's Aſcenſion, Peter, James and John, tho' preferred [not Peter alone] by our Lord above the reſt of the Apoſtles, did not thereupon contend among themſelves for the firſt place of Honour, but choſe James the Juſt Biſhop of Jeruſalem. Whoſe Chair I am ſure this paſſage makes Primus Honoris Gradus, the chief Cathedra in the world.

Having thus ſpoiled this your proof, your next will give me the leſs trouble,pag. 14. wherein St. Hierome tells Damaſus, that in this miſerable condition of the Eaſtern Churches being over-run by Hereſies, he would ſtick to St. Peter's Chair and that Faith commended by St. Paul, &c. which paſſage would have cleared it ſelf, had you but been ſo juſt as to have tranſlated the very next words, which bring us St. Hierome's reaſon for this his reſolution of ſlighting all Hereticks, and communicating with the Apoſtolical Chair at Rome, becauſe he had in that Church been firſt made a Chriſtian, —Inde nunc meae animae poſtulans cibum, unde olim Chriſti veſtimenta ſuſcepi. Hieron. Ep. Damaſo. and therefore thence would receive the ſpiritual food for his Soul. Had you Mr. Scl. but made St. Hierome's reſolution your own, you had never fallen from the Catholick, Apoſtolical and Orthodox Communion of the Church of England unto that of—. In the mean time remember that you have not proved either a Primacy, or a Succeſſion in it for the Biſhops of Rome.

In the next place, as tho' conſcious to your ſelf that you had done nothing hitherto, and that your Arguments for the Supremacy and then for the Succeſſion were too weak, you fall again to the proving that St. Peter was Supreme, O incomparable Method! and are now reſolved to doe it to purpoſe. But how? out of St. Chryſoſtome's Homilies and Comments; There is no one that hath looked, tho' but a little, into that Father, that will not ſmile at this your attempt. However you tell us, and no body will deny it, that he gives St. Peter extraordinary and noble Titles,pag. 15. that he calls him, Prime Leader of the Apoſtles, the head of Orthodoxy, the great High-Prieſt of the Church—the Pillar of the Church—the Head of the Chorus of the Apoſtles, and ſays that He took the charge of the whole Church throughout the World, &c.

I have onely this queſtion to put to you, whether you take St. Chryſoſtome, as to theſe paſſages concerning St. Peter (the greateſt as well as the cleareſt of which for your purpoſe I have here ſet down) in a ſtrict literal ſenſe? if you own it, as you ſeem to do by placing them here for ſuch a purpoſe, I muſt then plainly tell you, that you doe a very great wrong to this Holy and learned Father, than whom no one perchance ever gave himſelf a greater liberty as to Rhetorical flights in his Homilies: ſince in other places he beſtows Titles as high and as great as theſe on other Apoſtles, which if I take in the ſame ſenſe that you do theſe, the Good Father is made inconſiſtent with himſelf, and to preach down-right falſities and contradictions. I'll inſtance onely in St. John and St. Paul; do but give your ſelf the trouble to reade over his Preface to his Comments on St. John's Goſpel, and tell me then, whether you do not find him among other large Elogies calling St. John the Pillar of all the Churches throughout the world, — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Tom. 2. p. 555. ad fin. Edit. Savil. and telling us that He had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

But for St. Paul, I am confident I can make even you confeſs that He mounts him above St. Peter himſelf, concerning whom you have furniſhed a Catalogue of ſuch glorious Titles. Look but upon his Comment on that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chryſ. Tom. 3. p. 679. ſaying of St. Paul's [2 Cor. 11.28.] about his care of all the Churches (a paſſage by the bye that is more, than all your whole Church can patch together for St. Peter,) how he advances our Apoſtle; there he tells us, that St. Paul had the care and charge not of a ſingle Houſe, but of Cities, and Countreys, and Nations, yea of the whole world — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Orat. 5. contr. Jud. Tom. 6. pag. 364. : in another place that he was intruſted with the charge and Government of the whole world, which is the very ſame Commiſſion and as full and clear as that great one (which is your chief and beſt) that you quote for St. Peter of his having the charge of the Church throughout the world. And he does not onely make St. Paul 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 equal in dignity to St. Peter, but which is much more advances him above him, as I undertook to prove. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . D. Chryſ. Orat. 9. Tom. 6. p. 97. Edit. Savil. No one (ſays he ſpeaking of St. Paul) is greater than he, no nor equal to him neither, &c.

By this time I hope I have made it evident, that St. Chryſoſtome will not doe your buſineſs, that he is as much, nay more againſt you, than for you; and that you and I ought both of us to own our ſeveral Quotations for Rhetorical Flights, ſince in another— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . D. Chryſ. Tom. 8. p. 115. Edit. Savil. place, if you and I be obſtinate againſt any allowances for theſe paſſages; He ſpoils all we have both brought, when he tells us, That the Apoſtles were appointed by God to be Rulers, not [Temporal] Rulers, to receive each his Nation or City, but [Spiritual Rulers] intruſted in Common All together with the Care of [the Catholick Church throughout] the World. Therefore as all your Authorities from St. Chryſoſtome for St. Peter's Supremacy are out of doors,pag. 15. ſo that from St. Auguſtine comes too late having the ſame fault, as I could moſt eaſily ſhew, but do not think I need to trouble my ſelf with it,pag. 15. or what the Popes Legates ſaid at Chalcedon, that being to make a Man his own witneſs. Eſpecially ſince that great Council had ſo little value for what they ſaid that they did (notwithſtanding all the Pope's oppoſition) decree that Conſtantinople ſhould enjoy equal Privileges with old Rome, and which is more did declare,Etenìm antiquae Romae Throno QƲOD ƲRBS ILLA IMPERARET jure Patres Privilegia tribuere, & EADEM CONSIDERATIONE moti 150 Dei amantiſſimi Epiſcopi S. Sancto novae Romae Throno AEQƲALIA PRIVILEGIA addixerunt, &c. Concil. Chalced. cap. 28. Edit. Bever. Oxon. that as well old as new Rome had ſuch great Privileges beſtowed upon them, purely becauſe they were ſucceſſively the Imperial Cities of the world.

But pray Mr. Sclater how are we got hither? What is this, This, that reduces the Catholick Church, &c. Hath the Church of England denied the foreign Reformed Churches to be true Churches? Pray ſhew us where? But ſuppoſe ſhe had, this will not prove that the Catholick Church is reduced into this narrow Corner of the World, except you ſhew, that ſhe hath alſo denied the Church of Rome, and thoſe Churches that ſubmit to her to be true Churches. Nor this neither will not confirm your Obſervation, ſuppoſing the Church of England had rejected both the foreign Reformed, and Ʋnreformed Churches out of the Catholick Church; ſince you have ſurely heard of ſuch a Church, as the Large Greek Church under the Four Patriarchs, of the Ruſſian Church, of the vaſt Aethiopian Church, of the Armenian, and of the Neſtorians to omit others. Have you or can you prove that the Church of England hath excluded all theſe alſo from being Parts or Members of the Catholick Church? If you cannot, how doth ſhe confine the Catholick Church here, or what contradiction is ſhe guilty of, that abhors the thought of ſuch a thing as you would faſten upon her.

I cannot refrain ſhewing a juſt reſentment here, and therefore muſt tell you, that this your Obſervation is the moſt diſingenuous, and the moſt fooliſh that I ever met with in my Life, and that I could never have ſuſpected that any Man that had common ſenſe, and pretended to Conſcience, could have been guilty of ſo foul a thing, had I not met with it in this Book.

And juſt ſuch ſtuff as this is the Remark in this Obſervation, upon our Church, that ſhe is pleaſed in order to avoid the Word Catholick, to call it an Ʋniverſal Church, &c. Who would expect that a Man that hath been a Miniſter in our Church theſe Thirty Years, that hath uſed our Service perchance a Thouſand times, ſhould make ſuch a ſtrange Remark; hath our Church (as you ſay ſhe hath) in order to avoid the Word Catholick, ſtruck it out of that Tranſlation of the Apoſtles Creed, which ſhe appoints in her Liturgy? Hath ſhe ſtruck it out, and put in Ʋniverſal in the Four places it uſed to occur in in the Creed of St. Athanaſius? Is it gone out of the Nicene Creed ſhe appoints? Pray get ſome Body to look thoſe Three Creeds for you. A Man would believe you had not ſeen a Common-Prayer-Book theſe Thirty Years, or paſs a much ſeverer Sentence upon you. Doth not the Church of England command its Daily Ʋſe in the General Collect, which we daily put up for the good Eſtate of the Catholick Church? And further ſhe is ſo far from altering or endeavouring to avoid, as you moſt falſly would obſerve ſhe doth, the Word Catholick, See Biſhop Sparrows Collection of Canons, &c. that whereas in the Injunctions of King Edward the Sixth, 1547. the Form of bidding the Common-Prayers [before Sermon] begun thus; You ſhall Pray for the whole Congregation of Chriſt's Church, and, &c. in thoſe of Queen Elizabeth, 1559, and in the 55th of the Canons Eccleſiaſtical of the Synod under King James the Firſt, 1604. the Word Catholick is put in, and every Miniſter is commanded to begin his bidding of Prayer in theſe very words, Ye ſhall Pray for Chriſts Holy Catholick Church, &c. Nay you your ſelf uſed the term Catholick (while you continued, and as a Member of our Church) on laſt Palm-Sunday at Putney Church, or elſe you broke our Church Laws: So that I cannot now avoid the asking you your ſelf what you now think of this your Remark, and whether you had not ſaved your ſelf a diſparagement, had you had the good fortune not to have put it down.

You have a Second Remark much akin to the Firſt, in which you profeſs you can no more tell [how ſhe can be the Catholick Church] than ſhe is able to find her ſelf in the innumerable huddle of ten times Ten more Diſſenters, Diſſemblers, and Indifferents, pag. 19. than her number is able to make, &c. How you come to know the number of thoſe that hold Communion with the Church of England to be ſo very ſmall, is matter of wonder to me; but if I ſhould ſay that your Calculation is moſt intolerably falſe, I am ſure you cannot diſprove me, ſince I am certain I have truth and the common Judgment of all unprejudiced Men on my ſide, that Calculating the numbers of the ſeveral Pariſhes thro' England, there are one with another Ten (I may I believe ſafely ſay Twenty) times more that hold Communion with the Church of England than diſſent from it: As for Diſſemblers and Indifferents how you come to know Mens Hearts ſo well is owing more to your new than old Religion, which would have taught you more Prudence about ſuch things.

HAving traced you hitherto, and found all your Attempts vain, and your Reaſons to no purpoſe, which you took ſo much pains to ſcrape together, to have proved that our Saviour Chriſt left his Catholick Church in a Monarchical State under a Particular Vicegerent, and that that Vicegerent was the Biſhop of Rome, and his Church the Catholick Church. And having ſhewn all your Attacks againſt, and Remarks upon the Church of England to be very vain, extremely abuſive, and extravagantly ridiculous; I have now onely your laſt, your great Reaſon to examine, wherein you make an effort to prove, that her Faith concerning the Euchariſt is contrary to that of the Catholick Church.

If you could have proved this, I muſt confeſs your forſaking our Communion would have been much more reaſonable: and therefore I queſtion not, but that as you have muſtered up abundance of Authorities, ſo you have done all you can to make them ſpeak and declare againſt us: but to how little purpoſe you have made all this noiſe and ado about this point alſo is what I ſhall quickly ſee.

Before I enter on your particular proofs, I have a freſh complaint to make, that you have not uſed herein that Ingenuity, that would have become a Scholar; one might very rationally have expected that as your Intentions were to prove againſt the Church of England, that her Faith was as to the Euchariſt falſe and corrupt, ſo you would have ſet down what that her Faith is. This would have looked like fair and ingenuous dealing, firſt to have put down her Faith about the Euchariſt, and then to have ſhewn, how contrary it was to Scripture, and to the unanimous Conſent of Antiquity. If you reply to this my Complaint, that her Faith is ſo well known that you needed not put it down together, but that you have occaſionally done it up and down theſe Authorities; I muſt tell you that by the account you give of it occaſionally, one would be perſuaded that it is far from being ſo well known: I am ſure that ſlender account, or rather hints that you ſo often interſperſe about it, are utterly falſe and very fooliſh: ſo that if any one ſhould take an account of our Churches Faith from you, and whom can they better take it from than one that was ſo lately a Miniſter among us, they muſt believe that we hold the Euchariſt to be mere figures, mere repreſentations, and bare ſigns; for that is the moſt you allow us to make of it that I can meet with in your Book; all which how far it is from Truth I ſhall quickly ſhew you.

Well then, ſince you had not the Ingenuity to put down an Account of the Church of England's Faith about the Euchariſt, I muſt, that ſo I may the better examine the Proofs you bring, and any one may compare the Authorities you quote, and our Faith together, and thereby more impartially judge, and more readily diſcover, whether Antiquity fairly laid down ſpeak for, or againſt us.

Concerning this Sacrament the Church of England in her 28th Article of Religion delivers her Opinion thus, The Supper of the Lord is not onely a ſign of the love that Chriſtians ought to have among themſelves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Chriſt's death. Inſomuch that to ſuch as rightly, worthily, and with Faith receive the ſame, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Chriſt, and likewiſe the Cup of Bleſſing is a partaking of the Bloud of Chriſt. After which having declared her ſelf againſt Tranſubſtantiation as repugnant to plain Scripture, and to the nature of a Sacrament, and [againſt any Corporal Preſence of Chriſt's Natural Fleſh and Bloud in the Declaration about kneeling at the end of our Communion-Service in our Liturgy,] ſhe goes on in this Article to declare that The Body of Chriſt is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, onely after an heavenly and ſpiritual manner: and that the Mean whereby the Body of Chriſt is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith; which laſt expreſſions exclude the wicked from partaking of Chriſt's Body, and allow them barely the Sign, or outward part of the Euchariſt.

In the Publick Catechiſm in the Liturgy, having taught her Catechumens that there are two things in each of the Sacraments, the outward Sign, and the inward ſpiritual Grace, ſhe teaches them to anſwer that the outward part of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is Bread and Wine, and that the inward part or thing ſignified, is the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithfull in the Lord's Supper.

Theſe paſſages are ſufficient to ſhew that our Church holds a real, but not carnal, a Spiritual and Heavenly but not Corporal, Participation of Chriſt's Body and Bloud, which tho' locally and naturally in Heaven, is yet after a Myſtical and Supernatural way communicated to the Faithfull not by the mouth of the Body, but by that of Faith.

Thus much for her Sentiment concerning this Sacrament, pag. 20. now I muſt try your Reaſons againſt it. You tell us that you had been a long time greatly concerned for the Interpretation of but five ſmall words of our Saviour, &c. The reſult of your concern I ſuppoſe was that thoſe five words (I doubt we ſhall find more than five, or double five concerned in this buſineſs) are to be taken in a literal ſenſe; and that which you offer for proof of it is this. Firſt, Becauſe this Sacrament was his laſt Will and Teſtament, which ought not to be worded obſcurely or doubtfully to prevent quarrels and diviſions. Secondly, Becauſe this Will is repeated by ſo many of his Apoſtles without the leaſt variation or caution againſt the literal ſenſe. Thirdly, Becauſe it was an Oath or Sacrament, a Teſtament, a Precept, an Article of Faith, or a Poſition to continue in the Church for ever, the true Interpretation whereof, if Catholick Tradition have not given us, it is likely it will never be agreed on.

Theſe are the ſtrength of what you ſay, to the firſt of which I anſwer that this Will was neither worded obſcurely, or of doubtfull interpretation; that there are Diviſions about them is not owing to the words, but to the perverſe humours of ſome Men, whoſe quarrels no plainneſs is able to prevent. To your ſecond I ſay, that it is utterly falſe that our Saviour's Will, or the Inſtitution of this Sacrament was repeated by ſo many of his Apoſtles (allowing Mark and Luke the name of Apoſtles, tho' you know it is very unuſual) without the leaſt variation: to convince you of which, do but look upon this Parallel Account that I here ſend you out of them, and then conſider what reaſon you had, or with what face you could affirm as you do.

I Muſt next conſider what you have of Argument in your Preface, where you would have us believe that the ſixth Chapter of St. John's Goſpel is to be taken in a literal ſenſe; but ſince you were not at leiſure to offer any Proof for it, I need ſpend no time to anſwer: one thing I muſt examine there, and that is the danger you ſaid you muſt live and die in, under the denial, or but doubting of ſo great a Truth, Pref. in Communion with thoſe that ſaid, How can this Man give us his Fleſh to eat? And doth our Church ſay ſo, that our Saviour cannot give us his Fleſh to eat? How is it then, that in the Prayer [We do not preſume, &c. ſhe orders her Communicants to pray to our Gratious Lord to grant to them, ſo to eat the Fleſh of his dear Son Jeſus Chriſt, and to drink his Bloud, that their ſinfull Bodies may be made clean by his Body, and their Souls waſhed through his moſt pretious Bloud, &c. That in the Prayer of Conſecration the ſame Petition is put up, to omit any more places?

This, Sir, is very provoking, and highly unjuſt, that a Man, who hath perchance a hundred times uſed theſe very Prayers, who did laſt Palm-Sunday uſe them, reade them when he adminiſtred the Euchariſt to the Pariſhioners of Putney, ſhould in the face of the Sun, in our own Nation, in our own Language publiſh ſo groſs and Ʋntruth, and affix ſo falſe a Scandal upon our Church as to ſay, ſhe affirms our Saviour cannot give us his Fleſh to eat. If theſe and ſuch be the Fruits of your Converſion, ſit anima mea cum Philoſophis rather than with ſuch Chriſtians.

Do not think to bring off your ſelf with ſaying that our Church denies that any one can eat the Fleſh of Chriſt in that ſenſe which thoſe people meant it that ſpoke theſe words: that will not doe your buſineſs, ſince that Church whereof you now are, for all its belief of Tranſubſtantiation, abhors the Capernaitical ſenſe of theſe words as much as we, and are ready to ſay with us that our Saviour cannot, and does not give us his Fleſh to eat in that carnal, ſenſual, abominable manner that theſe Capernaites talked of.

Your next Obſervation in your Preface that Judas was one of the Diſciples that went back and walked no more with our Saviour, is I muſt confeſs a rarity, which hath eſcaped, I believe, all our Commentatours: but will your pretty (and ſpitefull) Obſervation hold? Matth. 26.23, 25. how is it then that we meet with Judas in our Saviour's diſh the very night before he was Crucified? I know no other fetch that you can have to ſave your ingenious Obſervation beſides that of a Gentleman, who in a diſpute holding that Abraham was juſtified by Faith, and being preſſed by the Opponent with that of St. James that Abraham was juſtified by Works, ſaved his bacon by ſaying that there were perhaps two Abrahams: and ſo you may gravely ſay, that there were two Judas Iſcariots.

As to the reaſon you add, that Juſtin ſhould have told the Emperor (if he meant no more by it) that by the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt, he intended only the Signs of them, ſince it was, he knew, objected to the Chriſtians his Brethren, that in the Myſteries of their Religion they did eat mans fleſh: I do retort it upon you, and challenge you to ſhew, where they ever pleaded guilty, or where they ever made any Apology for, or diſtinction about their eating our Saviours Natural Fleſh and Blood, tho' they abſtained from the Blood of every thing elſe, as any one that is but little converſant in the firſt Antiquity knows they conſtantly pleaded againſt the ſo often objected dapes Thyeſteas; upon this pointNihil rationabilius, ut quia nos jam ſimilitudinem mortis ejus in Baptiſmo accepimus, ſimilitudinem quoque carnis ejus ſumamus, & ſimilitudine pretioſi ſanguinis potemur: ita ut, & veritas non deſit in Sacramento, & ridiculum nullum fit Paganis, quod cruorem occiſi hominis bibamus. Aug. apud Grat. de Conſecr. Diſt. 2. Sect. utrum. p. 1958. Edit. Taur. St. Auſtin, as quoted by Gratian, is ſo expreſs both againſt your reaſon and your opinion, that I cannot omit it here, he ſayes, Nothing is more reaſonable than that as we have received the ſimilitude of his, to wit Chriſts death in Baptiſm, ſo we ſhould alſo receive the likeneſs of his Fleſh, and drink the likeneſs of his Pretious Blood; that ſo neither may Truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pagans have an occaſion of ridiculing us for drinking the Blood of one that was ſlain. Which it ſeems Pagans would then have done; had the Chriſtians then talked of drinking literally Chriſts Natural Blood: and the Jews and Mahometans do now do, ſince ſome Chriſtians took up an Opinion, and talked of doing it in a literal ſenſe, witneſs that ſevere Obſervation and Reflexion of Averroes upon them ſufficiently known.

Your first place from St. Irenaeus is not exactly tranſlated, eum panem in quo gratiae actae ſint, &c. is not barely that Bread in the Euchariſt is the Body of Chriſt; but that that Bread, which hath been conſecrated is the Body of his Lord. This paſſage is ſo far from being for, that it is directly againſt you; that Bread which hath been conſecrated is demonſtration that he looked upon it, as to the ſubſtance to be Bread ſtill; here you were forced to ſhew us a little of your Legerdemain, or elſe I am ſure this Chapter of Irenaeus had been ſecure enough from your quoting it, there being that in the middle of this paſſage (which you have ſlily left out) which is perfect demonſtration againſt TranſubſtantiationQuomodo autem rurſus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à corpore Domini & ſangaine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34. while St. Irenaeus argues for the immortality of our bodies from their having been nouriſhed by the Body and Blood of Chriſt: and as much againſt you is your next paſſage from him, and as well tranſlated by you, for as that which is Bread from the Earth, perceiving (very wiſe Bread truly this ſame was) the call of God [or as I would ſay, being conſecrated] now is not common Bread, but the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things, one earthly (i. e. the accidents) and the other Spiritual: ſo our bodies receiving the Euchariſt are not now corruptible, having the hope of the Reſurrection. What can be more plain againſt Tranſubſtantiation than this place, which ſtill ſuppoſes it to be Bread, when it ſayes that after Conſecration it is not common Bread; had Irenaeus taught or believed a Tranſubſtantiation here, he muſt have ſaid that after Conſecration it is not Bread at all, and not have talked of a terreſtrial or corporeal thing or part in the Euchariſt, as well as a heavenly or ſpiritual: but you ſay this earthly part is the accidents. I would fain know, what part of St. Irenaeus or the Ancients you learned this from, I am ſure you ought to be aſhamed of talking at this ridiculous rate; there is any Body ſcarce, but knows that earthly and material or corporeal are Synonymous, but you however contrary to all Reaſon, and all Philoſophy, muſt be ſetting up material Accidents, and you might as well have told us of incorporeal bodies, and corporeal nothings, as of earthly Accidents: but ſuch inconſiſtent ridiculous ſtuff will down it ſeems with a man that believes Tranſubſtantiation.

Your talk about impoſing a new ſignification upon the Bread and Wine is nothing to the purpoſe, p. 31. ſince our Church makes the Elements not only to ſignifie, but to communicate to us the Body and Blood of Chriſt after a ſpiritual and heavenly manner, which thing requires an Omnipotent Power for the inſtituting it for ſuch an effect, and enduing it with ſuch a virtue or power.

St. Hilary is your next Author, p. 38. whoſe words a man would believe were really thus connected, and in the ſame order he finds them ſet down by you, but I do aſſure every one that you are not a man to be truſted in theſe things. The paſſage ought to be divided into three diſtinct parts, with a mark of ſeparation betwixt them, and which is more, the firſt part to be placed laſt, and the middle firſt, and the third in the middle. Certainly, Mr. Sclater, you never ſaw St. Hilary in your life, or you would never have been guilty of ſuch wretched dealing, if your Skill in the Fathers lyes in playing ſuch tricks with them, I do aſſure you I will never quote after you. But for the words themſelves in their true order; tho' they ſeem to take our Saviour's words, my fleſh is meat indeed in a ſtrict ſenſe (againſt the Doctrine of the much Antienter Writers, Tertullian, Origen and Athanaſius (above quoted) who expreſly reject the literal ſenſe as dangerous and ridiculous, and therefore ſo may we) yet do not prove any Tranſubſtantiation; ſince our Saviour may be received in St. Hilary's ſenſe cibo Dominico, in the Euchariſt (not as you very homely tranſlate it, in our Lord's meat) with the Sacramental Bread, by an Ʋnion with it, whichThe Union of the moſt Holy Body, and precious Blood of our Lord-Jeſus Chriſt, are the words of the Prieſt, when he breaks the Bread, Pag. 28. your own quotation out of your St. James's Liturgy would teach, without any Annihilation of the ſubſtance of the Bread, which I believe St. Hilary never ſo much as dreamed of, and therefore could be no Patron of your Novel Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

Gregory Nazianzen's firſt paſſage ſays no more than our Church, p. 38. which calls the Sacred Elements the Body and Blood of Chriſt, and directsIn the Prayer in our Communion Service, (We do not preſume, &c. her Communicants to pray that they may worthily eat the Fleſh and drink the Blood of Chriſt. As to your Obſervation, that St. Gregory's advice had been needleſs, if we did onely eat the fleſh of Chriſt in ſign and figure: had you been skilfull, (as I ſuppoſe you are willing enough to be thought) in his Writings, you might have found, as ridiculous as you think it, St. Gregory himſelf calling the Bleſſed Bread and Wine, the Antitypes or figures of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, in that very Oration you your ſelf next quote, and within a dozen lines of that very place you produce thence; where he tells us that his Siſter Gorgonia, in a great ſickneſs mingled her tears with the Antitypes or Symbols of our Saviour's precious Body and Blood, Et ſi quid uſpiam Antityporum pretioſi corporis aut ſangulnis manus recondiderat, id lac • ymis admiſcuiſſet, ô rem admirandam, ſtatim liberatam ſe morbo ſentit. Greg. Naz. Orat. 11. in Laudem Gorgoniae, p. 187. Edit. Paris, 1630. with as many of them as ſhe had treaſured up. I hope you do not believe that ſhe had as many Bodies of Christ, as ſhe had in her hands parts of theſe Antitypes, which I do aſſure you do mean nothing more than Signs or Figures. This paſſage hath not onely confuted your first, but provided fully againſt the ſecond out of him, about his Siſter Gorgonia her proſtrating her ſelf before the Altar with Faith, p. 38. and praying to him with great clamour (as you neatly tranſlate it) who is worſhipped upon the Altar. Deſperatis omnibus aliis auxiliis ad mortalium omnium medicum confugit, at que intempeſtà nocte captatâ, cum morbus nonnihil remiſiſſet, ad Altare, &c. Idem cadem Oratione, p. 186. Upon this you tell us gravely, that ſhe prayed not to Bread and Wine, and I tell you, that ſhe prayed no more unto the Host, ſince neither our Bread and Wine, nor your Hoſt were then upon the Altar, for it was at Midnight that Gorgonia went privately into the Church, when there was no Priest, nor Service, nor Eucharist or Host to be worſhipped, but ſhe alone, as far as we can gather from St. Gregory, proſtrated before the Altar, at or upon which God is worſhipped. But ſome Men if they get a little thing by the end, that looks as if it might do them a Service, quickly lay hold of it; and never conſider the connexion it hath in the Diſcourſe from whence it is taken; if you had but read this Oration you ſo readily quote, and had but conſidered it, it might have ſaved you the making two ſilly remarks.

You quote next St. Baſil's Book, De Baptiſmo, c. 2. whereas the St. Baſil that I uſe Printed at Paris hath two Books de Baptiſmo; p. 39. in the ſecond of which under the third Queſtion I find what you quote, but cannot find that it is any thing to your purpoſe: we ſay with him that every one ought to prepare for the worthy receiving this holy Sacrament, and that the worthy Receiver is made Partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ. In his Antiphone the Bread and Wine are called the Types or Figures of the Body and Blood of Chriſt.

Here we meet with as high and as ſtrange Expreſſions about the Chriſm, as in the next Cathechiſm about the Euchariſtical Bread and Wine: as there the Bread upon Conſecration is ſaid to be no longer common Bread; juſt ſo it is ſaid here about the Chriſm that it is not common Oyl after Conſecration; as he talks there of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which you would have us to believe is no more than the bare appearance of Bread, ſo here of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which upon the ſame reaſon muſt be onely the appearance of Oyl without any Subſtance. In a word, if St. Cyril proves a Tranſubſtantiation of the Bread and Wine there, he as certainly proves a Tranſubſtantiation of the Chriſm-Oyl here: if you ſay as all confeſs that he doth not prove this of the Oyl, I muſt ſay upon equal grounds that he doth no more prove the other of the Bread and Wine; ſo that St. Cyril is not for your purpoſe of proving Tranſubſtantiation.

But before I paſs to your next Author, I have a queſtion to ask you, and that is, why you put down the Text it ſelf of Cyril here? whereas your Engliſh, if it be your own, is word for word tranſlated from Grodecius his Latin Tranſlation of St. Cyril: I appeal to your own Conſcience, whether what I ſay is not true; but ſince you may be too peeviſh to tell me, I will give an inſtance or two, beſides thoſe already obſerved, where you have both equally added to the Text of St. Cyril, or, groſly miſtaken it. St. Cyril ſayes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [which two laſt words you have altered into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,] this place you verbatim fromAquam aliquando mutavit in vinum, quod eſt ſanguini propinquum, in Cana Galilaeae, ſola voluntate: Grodec. Lat. Inter. Grodecius tranſlate thus, he ſometimes changed Water into Wine, which is neer to blood in Cana of Galilee, by his onely Will; whereas according to Grodecius his Greek, there is not a Syllable of ſuch an Expreſſion, as, which is neer to blood, and according to yours, not a Syllable for, by his onely Will; and yet you two could nick it ſo exactly.

But that which is the pleaſanteſt of all is, that you not onely tranſcribe a Blunder of his, but make it ten times worſe: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cyril. [ex Luc. 5.34.] Filiis Sponſi. Grodecil Interpr. Latina. To the Sons of his Spouſe, Sclaters Engl. Tranſlat. Cyril in this Paſſage ſpeaks of the Children of the Bride-chamber, Grodecius hath made them the Children of the Bridegroom, and you have made them the Children of the Bride, when you call them the Sons of his Spouſe; by which you mean our Saviour's Spouſe which I am ſure is his Bride the Church. This is tranſlating with a witneſs, and this it is to make a Man's ſelf a ſlave to another Man's Tranſlation, which is guilty of ſuch Blunders and Errours, and yet by putting your Margin full of Greek to make the World believe you had been at the Fountain-head your ſelf. I muſt confeſs it is the firſt time I ever heard of a He-Bride, or could have ſuſpected that a Man that hath ſo much Greek and Hebrew in his head would have tranſlated hic Sponſus, our Saviour his Spouſe.

I haue been ſo large upon theſe two Fathers, St. Gregory Nyſſen and St. Cyril, not onely becauſe they are always reckoned the chiefest Authors for Tranſubſtantiation, but becauſe I might thereby very much ſhorten the Anſwers I am to make to your following Authorities, which I ſhall conſider if they ſpeak any thing new, if not, refer to ſome of my Anſwers already made.

Optatus his Teſtimony is nothing to the Purpoſe, and that from Gaudentius is ſo far from being for your Tranſubſtantiation, that it is directly againſt you, as had I time or room here, I could eaſily ſhew.

St. Hierom's places prove the very ſame, p. 51. Nos autem audiamus, Panem, quem fregit Dominus, deditque Diſcipulis ſuis, eſſe Corpus Domini Salvatoris, ipſo dicente ad eos. atcipite, comedite, Hoc eſt Corpus meum. St. Hieron. Hedibiae. Tom. 3. p. 144. Edit. Froben. that is againſt you, as first that which ſays it was Bread our Saviour gave to his Diſciples, and that that Bread was his Body, which ſort of expreſſions your own learned men allow to prove a figurative Body onely, ſince Bread can no otherwiſe be the Body of Chriſt.

I wonder what you brought the Teſtimonies for, about the Clergy's always praying; if you did it for a touch at our married Clergy, remember that it touches your ſelf; and tho' it does not me, p. 53. yet this I will aſſure you that St. Hierom's Argument is very faulty and proves nothing at all becauſe it proves too much, ſince if the Clergy muſt abſtain from Matrimony, becauſe they muſt always pray; upon the very ſame reaſon all the Chriſtian Laity will be obliged alſo to abſtain from it, 1 Theſſ. 5.17. p. 54, 55, 56, &c. they being moſt expreſly commanded to pray without ceaſing.

From St. Chryſoſtom you have brought us a great many paſſages. How much that Learned Father delighted in Rhetorual Flights hath been already obſerved above, when I examined juſt ſuch quotations as theſe about St. Peters Supremacy; and that his Homilies are not to be ſtrictly taken, nor can be in a literal ſenſe, hath been abundantly proved above; However here you are for having the paſſages you cite him for about a Tranſubſtantiation taken in a literal ſenſe: which no man of learning would have ſaid, ſince it is impoſſible they ſhould: I will inſtance but in one of them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . D. Chryſ. in Matth. Tom. 2. p. 514. Edit. Savil. How many now ſay, I would ſee his Form, his Figure, his Garments and his Shoes, behold thou ſeeſt him, thou toucheſt him, thou eateſt him. I appeal to that perſon of meaneſt judgment in your whole Church, whoever he be; to your own ſecond thoughts, whether any one can or does, ſtrictly ſpeaking, See, Touch or Eat our Saviour: therefore if you will have a literal ſenſe of theſe and ſuch his hyperbolical expreſſions, you are eaſily anſwered that theſe paſſages you quote from St. Chryſoſtom prove nothing at all, becauſe they prove too much; becauſe they aſſert that which all learned men nay all men except you, grant to be impoſſible. But beſides all this, you your ſelf afford us a little paſſage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Idem. in 1 Ep. ad Corinth. Tom. 3. p. 379. which evidently deſtroys your attempt of making St. Chryſoſtom a Tranſubstantiation man, which you endeavour by your Engliſh to obſcure, (as you have ſerved many a larger place in your Book) and therefore I will clear the place thus, for as that Body is united to Chriſt, ſo we alſo are united to him by this Bread, which ſufficiently proves the Subſtance of the Bread to remain in the Eucharist. St. Chryſoſtom's opinion as to this point in controverſie betwixt us is ſo apparent from the late recovered Epiſtle of his to Caeſarius, as nothing can be more, I ſhall reſerve it to a further particular occaſion.

In his Epiſtle to Boniface he ſayes,Si enim Sacramenta quandam ſimilitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta ſunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non eſſent. Ex hac autem ſimilitudine plerumque etiam ipſarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo ſecundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Chriſti Corpus Christi eſt, Sacramentum Sanguinis Christi Sanguis Chriſti eſt, ita Sacramentum Fidei Fides eſt. Aug. Ep. 23. ad Boniface. P. 62, 63. P. 63. that if the Sacraments had no reſemblance with thoſe things whereof they are the Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all: from their reſemblance it is that they commonly bear the names of the things themſelves: for as the Sacrament of the Body of Chriſt is after a certain manner the Body of Chriſt, ſo the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. I might eaſily ſhew you, how he diſtinguiſhes between Sacramentum and Res Sacramenti, that Judas onely received Panem Domini, whereas the rest of the Apoſtles received Panem Dominum; but I muſt haſten to your next Testimonies from St. Cyril of Alexandria, the firſt of which hath been already more than once anſwered; your ſecond is directly againſt your ſelf, the Jews fault being that they underſtood our Saviour in a literal ſenſe, and not in the Spiritual in which he meant it; and Nicodemus his fault was of the ſame nature about Regeneration, ſo that you certainly took this place on truſt without conſidering it; and your Jeer at the end of it is both groundleſs and ridiculous; hictius doctius, hei Preſto, be gone, do far better become your People who teach that upon pronouncing hoc eſt corpus meum the Bread is gone, and the Body of Chriſt is in its room in a trice: but to paſs ſuch childiſh ſtuff, your laſt Teſtimony from this St. Cyril does not deſerve any conſideration, it proving nothing for your purpoſe.

I am now arrived atTheodoret. P. 63. him, whom of all men I little thought you would have cited in, and of all places you would not have medled with that you do; but to give you your due, you are a hardy man, and reſolved to go through with Theodoret alſo, tho' you looſe ſome Skin by it, and get never ſo many blows and hard words. Well then you bring us his ſecond Dialogue againſt the Eutychians, where after the Queſtions asked and anſwered about the Sacramental Bread and Wine, their being the ſymbols of the true Body and Blood of Chriſt, which is alſo received it ſelf in the Euchariſt: the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .—Orthodox.— Eutychian thinking he had caught the Orthodox Adverſary, argues upon his conceſſion, that as the Symbols then of the Body and Blood [here you make a ſtop, and it was time for you to do it, wherein you ſhew, tho' no honeſty, yet ſome cunning; but I muſt continue the objection of the Eutychian to make the ſenſe clear and full, as well as to ruine your ſilly deſign hence] are one thing before Conſecration, but after it are changed, and made another thing; juſt ſo the Body of our Lord after its aſſumption is changed into the divine Subſtance or Nature. This was the Eutychians Argument upon which the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Theodoret. Dial. 2. p. 85. Edit. Sirmond. 1642. Orthodox makes a quick reply, and tells him that he was caught in his own Nets, ſince the Myſtical Symbols [the bleſſed Bread and Wine] do not after [or upon] their Conſecration depart from their eſſential Nature, but continue in their former Subſtance, Form, and Kind, and are as viſible, and as palpable now, as they were before their Conſecration, &c. This place of Theodoret is ſo demonſtrative againſt Tranſubſtantiation, that you had need, if you muſt be bringing it in for you, to obſcure the ſenſe by your abrupt & caetera, and to falſify it too as you have done here by a ridiculous Tranſlation, which quite ſpoils Theodoret's Argumont hence againſt the Eutychians, as I ſhall by and by ſhew in one of my Corollaries; in the interim to let you and the world ſee the intolerable diſingenuity of your Tranſlating 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 appear no other than in their own nature, I will but bring a ſhort paſſage out of his firſt Dialogue to evince it, where he ſayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Idem. Dial. 1. p. 18. our Saviour honoured the Symbols and Signs [the Sacramental Bread and Wine] with the names of his Body and his Blood, not [by] changing at all their NATURE, but by adding of GRACE to Nature.

Proclus of Conſtantinople your next Author is directly againſt your ſelf, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ΑΥΤΟΥ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Procli C. P. de Traditione D. Liturgiae. p. 581. Edit. Romae. 1630. ſince it is the Preſence of the Holy Ghoſt according to him, and not of the Natural Body and Blood of Chriſt, which makes the Bread and mingled Wine, the very Body and Blood of Chriſt.

HAving hitherto ſufficiently anſwered all your pretended Proofs for Tranſubſtantiation, and ſhewn in part the Senſe and Arguments of the Fathers againſt it, inſtead of wearying my ſelf, or rather our Reader with any more of your Authors which you very irregularly place, and which you your ſelf will grant to be produced to no purpoſe, if the former Primitive Fathers were of a contrary Faith about the Euchariſt: I ſhall here adjoyn a few Corollaries to vindicate the Faith of the Catholick and Apoſtolical Church of England againſt Tranſubſtantiation, and will make it apparently clear that her Doctrine and Faith herein is both Primitive and Orthodox, and exactly the ſame with that of the Fathers of the Catholick Church.

My firſt Corollary ſhall be, 1 Coroll. That the Fathers gave ſuch Titles to the Conſecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, as utterly exclude a Tranſubſtantiation.

It was ſufficiently common with them, to call the Elements Tertullian. con. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40. Beda. Comment. in 3. Pſalm. the Figure, August. de Doctr. Chriſti c. 7. Origen. Dialog. cont. Marcion. p. 116. Edit. Wets. the Sign, Baſil. Anaphora. Cyril. Hieroſol. Col. 4. Cat. Myſ. the Type, Greg. Naz. Orat. 118. Macarius. Hom. 27. the antitype, Auguſt. in Gratiano. the Similitude, Theodoret. Dialog. 2. and the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, Tom. 6. Concil. Edit. Coſſart. and a whole Oecumenical Council of 338 Biſhops at Conſtantinople, A. D. 754. declare them to be the true (and onely) Image of our Saviour's Body and Blood.

Theſe Expreſſions and the like I argue to be utterly inconſiſtent with the Elements, being Tranſubſtantiated into the very Body and Blood of Chriſt, ſince it is impoſſible any thing can be the Figure of a thing, and the thing it ſelf; or the thing it ſelf, and yet but the figure of it: he that will affirm this may without an abſurdity ſay that the Sign of the King at a Tavern door is the King himſelf, that the Picture of the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard is as real a true Ship, as any on the River, and that the Image of the King in the Exchange is really King James 2d. in his very Perſon. In ſhort, if any thing be the Figure, it cannot be the thing; if it be the thing it ſelf, it cannot be the Figure of it, ſince nothing can be the Figure of it ſelf. And therefore if Chriſt's Natural Body be really on the Altar, that which is there cannot be the Figure of it; But if (as the Fathers almoſt unanimouſly ſpeak) that which is there be the Figure, the Sign of it, then conſequently our Saviour's Natural Body it ſelf is not.

This is ſo evident, See Tertullian's 4th Book againſt Marcion. ch. 40th. I think I need not ſay any more upon this Point, I might very eaſily elſe have ſhewn that the Strength of one of Tertullian's Arguments, for our Saviour his having a true ſubſtantial Body, againſt Marcion depended wholly on the Euchariſt, its being the FIGURE of his Body: but I will wave it, and conclude this Corollary with that of Facundus, Et poteſt Sacramentum Adoptionis, Adoptio nuncupari. Sicut Sacramentum Corporis & Sanguinis ejus, quod eſt in Pane & Poculo conſecrato, Corpus ejus & Sanguinem dicimus. Non quod propriè Corpus ejus ſit Panis & Poculum Sanguis: Sed quod in ſe Myſterium Corporis ejus, ſanguiniſ que contineant. Hinc & ipſe Dominus benedictum Panem & Calicem, quem Diſcipulis tradidit, Corpus & Sanguinem ſuum Vocavit. Facund. Herm. pro Defenſ. 3. Capit. Con. Chalced. Lib. 9. c. 5. p. 404, 405. Edit. Sirmond. 1629. Biſhop of Hermiana in Africa, the Sacrament of Adoption may be called by the name of Adoption, as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, the conſecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, his Body and his Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, or the Cup his Blood, but becauſe they contain the Myſtery of his Body and Blood: upon which very account it is, that when our Lord delivered the conſecrated Bread and Cup to his Diſciples, he called them his Body and his Blood. One thing I muſt not forget here, that tho' theſe Fathers and the Church of England with them, look upon the conſecrated Elements as Signs and Figures onely, yet they and we believe that by the Inſtitution of Chriſt they are the Means of conveying all the Virtue and Benefits of our Saviour's crucifyed Body, of communicating the Blood and Body of Chriſt unto every worthy Communicant. This I could not omit to let you ſee the ſillineſs of your fooliſh Cant up and down of meer Signs of what, meer figures, &c. ſuch Expreſſions were deſigned againſt the Church of England, or what do they in your Book againſt her; if they were, I muſt tell you that they are ſottiſhly ridiculous, and moſt intolerable from a man, who was, I am ſorry I can ſay it, a Miniſter of the Church of England, and therefore muſt ſo often have ſeen her Articles, and ſo often have uſed her Communion-Service.

My Second Corollary is, 2. Coroll. That ſuch things are attributed to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Chriſt, by the Primitive Fathers, as do altogether exclude their being tranſubſtantiated into the Natural Body and Blood of Chriſt.

I inſtance in that of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Chriſt their being ſaid to Nouriſh our Bodies.

That the conſecrated Elements do nouriſh our Bodies is very apparent from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Juſtin. Apolog. 2. St. Justin Martyr's ſaying that our fleſh and blood are nouriſhed by the conſecrated Elements being changed into our Subſtance: From Quando ergo Calix & Panis percipiunt • erbum Dei, fit Euchariſtia Sanguinis & Corporis Chriſti, ex quibus augetur & conſiſtit Carnis noſtrae Subſtantia. S. Iren. c. Haer. l. 5. c. 18. Irenaeus and Caro Corpore & Sanguine Chriſti veſcitur, ut & Anima de Deo ſaginetur. Tert. de Reſurrect. c. 8. Tertullian, that our Fleſh is fed and nouriſhed with the Body and Blood of Chriſt: From— Ille Cibus, qui ſanctificatur per Verbum Dei, per que obſecrationem, juxta id quod babet materiale, in ventrem abit & in ſeceſſum ejicitur. Orig. in 15 Matt. p. 27. Origen, that the Euchariſt as to its Material Part, undergoes the common courſe of our common repaſts: FromQuia ſicut viſibilis Panis & Vini ſubſtantia exteriorem nutrit & inebriat hominem: ita Verbum Dei, qui eſt Panis Vivus, participatione ſui Fidelium recreat mentes. Iſidor. Hiſpal. apud Rathramni. Lib. de Corp. & Sang. D. p. 120. Edit. Paris. Boileau. 1686. Iſidore of Sevil, that the Subſtance of the Viſible Bread and Wine do nouriſh the outward man, that is our Bodies, as the Word of Chriſt, the Living Bread doth nouriſh the Souls of the Faithfull Communicants.

Rathramne or Bertram Up and down the ſecod part of his Book from p. 127. uſes this Nouriſhment of our Bodies by the Sacramental Body and Blood, for an Argument to prove his diſtinguiſhing betwixt the Sacramental and the Natural Body of Chriſt to be juſt and neceſſary:Illa Eucharistia temporaria eſt, non aeterna: corruptibilis; crit que minutim diviſibilis: inter Dentes manditur, & in ſeceſſum emittitur. Homilia Anglo Sax. apud not as Whelochi in Beda. L. 5. c. 22. p. 472. Edit. Cantabrig. 1644. Our Saxon Paſchal Homily, which uſed to be read in our Churches in the Tenth Century follows Rathramn exactly in this point, and teaches that the Sacramental Body is corruptible, becauſe it may be broke into ſeveral pieces, grinded by the Teeth, and being ſwallowed down into the Stomach, is thence caſt into the draught.

Having collected Paſſages enough, that which I intend to prove from them is, that the Natural Body and Blood of Chriſt (into which you Tranſubſtantiators ſay the Bread and Wine upon Conſecration are tranſubstantiated) cannot without the greateſt impiety be thus ſaid to Nouriſh our Bodies. There is no one that underſtands what Nouriſhment means, how that macerating by the Teeth, Digestion in the Stomach, Separation in the Guts of the impure and excrementitious (which paſſes into the draught) from the purer, which paſſing through the Lacteals, and other chanels falls into the Common Maſs of Blood, are all neceſſary in order to Nouriſhment; but muſt at the ſame time abhor the very thought of our Saviours Natural Body undergoing ſuch tortures and changes in order to the Nouriſhment of our Bodies. Either it is Bread or Wine, or the Natural Body and Blood of Christ that undergoes theſe ſeveral ſtages in order to our Nouriſhment: Neither you nor we talk of any third Body for theſe purpoſes. If there be no Bread and Wine upon Conſecration left, which you affirm, then it is unavoidable that the Natural Body and Blood of Chriſt which are come into the others place muſt afford this Nouriſhment to our Bodies; but if you dare not affirm this, which it were moſt blaſphemous to do; it will of neceſſity follow that the ſubſtances of the Bread and Wine do after conſecration continue in order to this Nouriſhment, and therefore no Tranſubſtantiation either is or could be believed by them, who did attribute this power of nouriſhing to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.